Democratizing Evidence in Education

Tseng, Vivian; Fleischman, Steve; Quintero, Esther

doi:10.4324/9781315268309-1

Cited by 24 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, it may be advantageous for the field to consider the use of collaborative and long‐term models for engagement, including community‐based participatory research models, policy enactment research, sabbaticals in educational settings, community partnerships, collaborative inquiry, and the formation of researcher–practitioner partnerships (Ainscow, Dyson, Goldrick, & West, 2016; Benson, Harkavy, & Puckett, 2000; Coburn, Penuel, & Geil, 2013; National Research Council, 2003; Wallerstein & Duran, 2010). Inherent in these collaborations is an appreciation for the diverse perspectives that drive social change in education; an acknowledgment that how research is often designed (e.g., in laboratory or clinical settings, without input from end users) can contribute to unintended biases in how knowledge is generated, disseminated, and used; and intentional organizational structures to diminish power dynamics and promote equity (Chicago Beyond, 20192019; Tseng, Fleischman, & Quintero, 2018). These endeavors may allow for the collaborative development of feasible models and tailored frames that explain the SOR in memorable and useful ways for a variety of stakeholders.…”

Section: Proposed Translational Science Road Mapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translational Science: A Road Map for the Science of Reading

Solari

Terry

Gaab

et al. 2020

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite scientific advances that have informed our understanding of reading acquisition and development, a profound gap exists between empirical findings and the implementation of evidence‐based practices in the assessment and instruction of reading in school settings. The debate regarding the practical implications of the science of reading (SOR) and its implementation in authentic school settings is palpable. As researchers, practitioners, policymakers, parents, and other educational stakeholders engage in this latest version of the debate on how best to teach young learners to read, a familiar, almost cyclical, narrative has emerged. As an interdisciplinary group of researchers who study diverse facets of reading development, assessment, and instruction, it is troubling how little the current and past debates have focused on processes that could ensure that the instructional experience students receive in classrooms is informed by existing science. Specifically, the authors contend that the persistent gap between the SOR and its school‐based implementation exists because the field has yet to invest in the appropriate methodologies and processes to develop an effective model of translational science. The authors argue not only that much can be learned from previous iterations of this debate but also that advances in translational science provide a framework for how to address the SOR debate differently and more productively in the current climate. Thus, the authors propose a road map for translational science for the SOR, acknowledging the breadth of work done in translational science in other fields and recognizing and describing the added complexities in the emerging field of translational science in educational settings.

show abstract

Section: Proposed Translational Science Road Mapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translational Science: A Road Map for the Science of Reading

Solari

Terry

Gaab

et al. 2020

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We combined instructional strategies identified in previous research with instructional features considered important to the teachers (e.g., visual material, tasks, preparation time). The effects of the intervention on students' L2 skills thus add to the literature, suggesting that partnerships may help generate new knowledge for educational improvement (Bevan et al, 2018;Coburn et al, 2013;Donovan et al, 2013;Donovan & Snow, 2018;Tseng et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Bridging educational research and practice is important to improve student learning (Bevan, Penuel, Bell, & Buf‐fington, ; Coburn, Penuel, & Geil, ; Donovan & Snow, ; Donovan, Snow, & Daro, ; Tseng, Fleischman, & Quintero, ). Collaboration and partnerships between researchers and practitioners provide an opportunity to address the multidimensional features of educational challenges more fully (i.e., efficient instructional practice, useful curricular materials).…”

Section: A Practitioner Partnership Oral Language Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral Language Intervention in Norwegian Schools Serving Young Language‐Minority Learners: A Randomized Trial

Heller

Lervåg

Grøver

2019

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this randomized trial study, the authors examined the efficacy of a practitioner partnership language intervention addressing oral language learning (expressive and receptive) in young language‐minority learners from multiple‐language groups in Norway. Resource teachers in 16 elementary schools implemented the intervention in the first and second grades, delivering a total of 64 thirty‐minute sessions over eight consecutive weeks. With a mean age of 6 years 3.34 months, 137 students were randomly allocated to an intervention group or a waiting‐list control group, with the latter group receiving the intervention after posttest 1. Five assessments of oral language skills were conducted before the intervention, immediately following it, and four months later. The intervention group showed significant improvements in various oral language skills compared with the waiting‐list control group. There were no significant differences between the groups at the four‐month follow‐up when the waiting‐list control group received the intervention. The program was successful in enhancing oral language skills in young language‐minority learners.

show abstract

“…This call resonates strongly with this family of approaches’ call for collaborative engagement between research and practice. There are also strong resonances with recent calls for democratizing evidence in policymaking (Tseng et al, 2018). Here, the effort is centered on how to construct more “two-way streets” (Tseng et al, 2017) between research on one hand and policy and practice on the other for the purpose of promoting evidence-based decision making.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Principles of Collaborative Education Research With Stakeholders: Toward Requirements for a New Research and Development Infrastructure

Penuel¹,

Riedy

Barber

et al. 2020

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A group of collaborative approaches to education research sits uneasily within the existing infrastructure for research and development in the United States. The researchers in this group hold themselves to account to ways of working with schools, families, and communities that are different from the ways envisioned by models for education research promoted in U.S. policies and endorsed by U.S. federal agencies. Those models, widely supported by funders, privilege the research priorities of individual investigators and regularly yield products and findings with little relevance to educational practice. In this article, we review four collaborative approaches: Community-based Design Research, Design-based Implementation Research, Improvement Science in Networked Improvement Communities, and the Strategic Education Research Partnership. Through a participatory process involving developers and advocates for these approaches, we identified a set of interconnected principles related to collaboration, problem solving, and research. Further, we reviewed evidence of these principles in projects belonging to these four approaches. We contend it is worth attempting to understand, build upon, and support enactments of these principles in research proposals and projects, because there is evidence these approaches can promote agency and equity in education. To do so would require the field to develop criteria for judging quality, which peers can use to evaluate individual studies or sets of research; new outcomes by which to measure progress; new venues for developing and giving accounts of research; and an appreciation for the value of developing and cultivating relationships with educators, families, and communities as an integral part of research.

show abstract

Democratizing Evidence in Education

Cited by 24 publications

References 10 publications

Translational Science: A Road Map for the Science of Reading

Translational Science: A Road Map for the Science of Reading

Oral Language Intervention in Norwegian Schools Serving Young Language‐Minority Learners: A Randomized Trial

Principles of Collaborative Education Research With Stakeholders: Toward Requirements for a New Research and Development Infrastructure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About